Iran

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings See them marked on presstv.co.uk

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy says two supertankers, carrying a total of more than 4 million barrels of oil, have suffered massive explosions and were disabled in the Strait of Hormuz after ignoring repeated warnings against using an unauthorized and unsafe southern shipping route. "Last night, two violating oil tankers—which had ignored repeated warnings from the Strait of Hormuz traffic control center of the IRGC Navy regarding the unauthorized and unsafe nature of the southern route —faced an incident while transiting through this unauthorized path in the Strait of Hormuz, and stopped sailing following a massive explosion," said the IRGC Navy public relations office in a statement on Thursday.

According to the statement, both supertankers were carrying a combined cargo of more than four million barrels of oil and were now burning. It issued a stark warning to vessels placing their trust in the US military, which it described as a “smuggling” force. “Any vessel in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz that switches off its navigation systems and cooperates with the US smuggling army in transiting the unauthorized southern route through the Strait of Hormuz will meet a similar fate,” the IRGC said.

Iranian forces have maintained full control over transit through the Strait — through which roughly one-fifth of global oil normally passes — requiring prior authorization and confining safe passage exclusively to designated northern corridors. Southern routes near Omani waters have been declared unauthorized and mined, with IRGC Navy statements confirming that vessels attempting to use them after disabling AIS systems have struck mines, exploded, and caught fire.

IRGC Navy units have repeatedly intercepted or neutralized ships attempting covert transit, including those linked to the Israeli regime or operating under US encouragement. IRGC commanders have stressed that empty American promises of escort and protection have repeatedly proven hollow, as vessels trusting such assurances have been halted or destroyed. The force has underscored that only ships complying with Iranian rules can transit safely, while those serving the interests of the aggressors face decisive consequences.

Iran imposed the restrictions on the strait in response to the latest round of US-Israeli aggression, which began on February 28.

Read the original article on presstv.co.uk

What we found (4)

Press TV relays the IRGC Navy's account of two supertankers exploding in the Strait of Hormuz, but writes in the passive that the southern route has been 'mined' and never names who laid the mines, even as it quotes the IRGC threatening other ships with 'a similar fate'. In its own voice it states IRGC claims about full control of the strait, the links of ships it stopped and 'US-Israeli aggression' as plain fact, uses loaded words such as 'neutralized', and lets no party other than the IRGC speak.

States one side's claim as fact
Serious
“Iranian forces have maintained full control over transit through the Strait”
Why this matters
Press TV states in its own voice, with no attribution, that Iranian forces hold 'full control' of transit.
The impression it gives
It is an established fact that Iran fully controls passage through the strait.
The context
This is the IRGC's position. The same reporting shows ships attempting the southern route with US military aircraft overhead, so control of the strait is contested, not settled.
How we know
- Tehran Times reported“under the protection of aircraft belonging to the 'US military's aggressive forces.'”Mines strike two tankers in Strait of Hormuz: IRGC Navy (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
“including those linked to the Israeli regime or operating under US encouragement”
Why this matters
Press TV asserts as fact that the ships stopped were linked to Israel or acting under US encouragement, with no source named for the claim.
The impression it gives
The ships intercepted were proven to be Israeli-linked or US-directed.
The context
Nothing in the article identifies any ship, owner or flag. The link is the IRGC's description, written as the outlet's own finding.
Show it in the article
“in response to the latest round of US-Israeli aggression”
Why this matters
Press TV labels the US and Israeli strikes as 'aggression' and the Iranian restrictions as a 'response' in its own voice.
The impression it gives
The article has established who started the hostilities and that Iran's closure of the southern route is a reaction.
The context
The article gives no facts about what began on February 28. The label and the causal order are Iran's framing, stated without attribution.
Show it in the article
Written straight
The IRGC says it controls transit through the strait and that ships it has stopped were linked to Israel or the US. Iran says it imposed the restrictions in response to US and Israeli attacks that began on February 28.
Hides who did it
Minor
“have been declared unauthorized and mined”
Why this matters
The passive 'have been declared unauthorized and mined' removes whoever laid the mines from the sentence.
The impression it gives
The southern route is simply mined, as a fact of the sea, with no one responsible.
The context
The article itself says Iranian forces control transit and that Iran imposed the restrictions, and the IRGC credits the mines with stopping the tankers. The actor the passive hides is the side issuing the warnings.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“Iran imposed the restrictions on the strait”
- Elsewhere in the article“Iranian forces have maintained full control over transit”
- Tehran Times reported“the naval mines had thwarted an 'attempt to smuggle the vessels through the unauthorized route,'”Mines strike two tankers in Strait of Hormuz: IRGC Navy (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“the Israeli regime”
Why this matters
Press TV calls Israel's government 'the Israeli regime' in its own narration.
The impression it gives
The outlet's own description carries a verdict on the Israeli state rather than a neutral name.
The context
The phrase is not attributed to anyone. It is the outlet's word.
Show it in the article
“neutralized ships”
Why this matters
Press TV uses 'neutralized' for ships attacked or disabled by IRGC units.
The impression it gives
The ships were dealt with cleanly, as threats removed.
The context
The article's own sentences describe ships that 'struck mines, exploded, and caught fire'. 'Neutralized' hides what was done to them and to anyone aboard.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“struck mines, exploded, and caught fire”
Show it in the article
One side gets the space
Minor
“IRGC commanders have stressed that empty American promises of escort and protection have repeatedly proven hollow”
Why this matters
Press TV gives the IRGC another paragraph to characterise US promises, as it does in every sentence of the piece.
The impression it gives
The IRGC's account is the whole story.
The context
No ship owner, crew, flag state, US military or other party is quoted or even said to have been asked. The US side appears only through IRGC characterisation.
Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Tehran TimesMines strike two tankers in Strait of Hormuz: IRGC Navy (opens in a new tab)

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

Everything we scored from Press TV

Iran

States one side's claim as fact

Hides who did it

Uses a loaded word

One side gets the space

How other outlets reported it

More from Press TV